John Dolva Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) it puts a new light on an old joke about Churchill. Whether the attribution is correct or not, I don't know, but it goes something like this: Mrs Churchill "Winston, you're drunk!" Churchill "That may be so, but in the morning I'll be sober and you'll still be ugly." What an arrogant a..hole. Edited September 25, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 it puts a new light on an old joke about Churchill. Whether the attribution is correct or not, I don't know, but it goes something like this:Mrs Churchill "Winston, you're drunk!" Churchill "That may be so, but in the morning I'll be sober and you'll still be ugly." What an arrogant a..hole. The conversation was actually with the Liverpool socialist MP Bessie Braddock. Here is another Churchill story. Upon being told by Lady Astor, "If you were my husband, I'd put poison in your tea." Churchill replied: "If I were your husband, I’d drink it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 it puts a new light on an old joke about Churchill. Whether the attribution is correct or not, I don't know, but it goes something like this:Mrs Churchill "Winston, you're drunk!" Churchill "That may be so, but in the morning I'll be sober and you'll still be ugly." What an arrogant a..hole. The conversation was actually with the Liverpool socialist MP Bessie Braddock. Here is another Churchill story. Upon being told by Lady Astor, "If you were my husband, I'd put poison in your tea." Churchill replied: "If I were your husband, I’d drink it!" Two examples of his prodigious wit and stonkingly funny and clever British humour too, if you ask me... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Today the National Archives at Kew released some documents that concerned the imprisonment of Rudolf Hess. Unfortunately, they do not refer to the situation in the 1980s but to discussions about his release in 1974. It shows that it was not only the Soviet Union who wanted to keep Hess in prison. A British memo says: "Hess has shown no remorse and has not renounced his Nazi faith. To release Hess in these circumstances could stimulate a Nazi revival." Nonsense of course, but it helped to justify the British decision not to release him. Interestingly, Richard Nixon was all for him being released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Today the National Archives at Kew released some documents that concerned the imprisonment of Rudolf Hess. Unfortunately, they do not refer to the situation in the 1980s but to discussions about his release in 1974. It shows that it was not only the Soviet Union who wanted to keep Hess in prison. A British memo says: "Hess has shown no remorse and has not renounced his Nazi faith. To release Hess in these circumstances could stimulate a Nazi revival." Nonsense of course, but it helped to justify the British decision not to release him. Interestingly, Richard Nixon was all for him being released. Part of the Republican Party's electoral strategy was to 'import' supporters. Nixon was partly instrumental in this strategy and a significant component of these potential Republican voters were ex-nazis and sympathisers. Perhaps releasing Hess (or declaring a support for it) was just another example of Tricky-Dickys 'style', Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted September 29, 2007 Author Share Posted September 29, 2007 Today the National Archives at Kew released some documents that concerned the imprisonment of Rudolf Hess. Unfortunately, they do not refer to the situation in the 1980s but to discussions about his release in 1974. It shows that it was not only the Soviet Union who wanted to keep Hess in prison. A British memo says: "Hess has shown no remorse and has not renounced his Nazi faith. To release Hess in these circumstances could stimulate a Nazi revival." Nonsense of course, but it helped to justify the British decision not to release him. Interestingly, Richard Nixon was all for him being released. Part of the Republican Party's electoral strategy was to 'import' supporters. Nixon was partly instrumental in this strategy and a significant component of these potential Republican voters were ex-nazis and sympathisers. Perhaps releasing Hess (or declaring a support for it) was just another example of Tricky-Dickys 'style', It is clear from these documents that this was mainly a PR exercise. For example, this is a telegram signed by someone called "Callaghan": "We should leave the Russians in no doubt about continuing Allied concern. We wish also to be in a position ... to demonstrate we have made a recent effort to secure [the] release." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 (edited) Sorry for the delay in replying. I have been on holiday and then I had some important work to finish (this forum is my hobby, not my full-time employment). I do have a copy of the book. I agree that it would have taken time for Cameron to brainwash Hess. I did not suggest this was done at Nuremberg. What I said was that he arrived at Nuremberg to assess his state of mind. The brainwashing was done while he was held in captivity in England. The point of the Nuremberg assessment was to check to see if the brainwashing had been successful and that it was still safe for him to testify. John sorry for not getting back sooner my participation on other thread left me with out time to respond here. No you "did not suggest this was done at Nuremberg" in the post I quoted but you had in your entry on Cameron from Spartacus in which you wrote: “It has been argued by John Simkin that Cameron might have been sent to Nuremberg to help the British intelligence services with a problem concerning the real reasons why Rudolf Hess arrived in Scotland in May 1941. Cameron’s task was to remove Hess’s memory of past events. This is why in 1946 Hess was unable to recognize his former friends and colleagues such as Hermann Goering, Julius Streicher and Joachim von Ribbentrop. Cameron next job was to provide Hess with a new memory about events dating back to May 1941. That is why Hess was able to provide Major Douglas M. Kelley with a comprehensive account of his trip to Scotland.” http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcameronDE.htm You made the same argument (escept that you refered to yourself in the 1st person) in post #254 on page 17 of this thread 4 mesages before the one I quoted. What evidence do you have that Cameron… …was in the UK between the time of Hess’s arrival and his deportation to Nuremberg? …was at all involved in the care he received during the same period? …“was carrying out experiments into sensory deprivation and memory as early as 1938” or anytime before visiting Hess? Do you believe that he “depatterned” Hess himself or instructed other how to do so? Was this done by the British military doctors treating him or with their knowledge? If not, how was this hidden from them? If so, why would they have provided accounts that you have cited? The big unanswered question is why didn’t they just killed him? I’ve seen it argued (perhaps by you I don’t remember) that they didn’t want him mistreated because they feared reprisals against Allied POW’s otherwise. But why not fake a suicide at the end of the war when numerous other top Nazi’s ended their lives? Hess had displayed suicidal tendencies since his capture. Even if Cameron had started experimenting with his techniques their would have been no way to be sure in 1945/6 how long lasting the memory loss would be. Today the National Archives at Kew released some documents that concerned the imprisonment of Rudolf Hess. Unfortunately, they do not refer to the situation in the 1980s but to discussions about his release in 1974.Are these documents available online? Edited October 11, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Michael Chapman, you're long awaited "grand theory" that connects in part, to the theme of this thread, is now long overdue. Assuming you are hale and hearty I look forward to you posting it here soonest. Such gems of research should not be remain hidden from public view for too long. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Continued from pages 2 & 3 of the “Posner CIA nexus…Mengele…” thread David It seems that I conflated the Thomas book(s) about Hess with DOUBLE STANDARDS a more recent book that promotes a similar theory (i.e. the man held in Spandau wasn’t Hess). If you read either one how did he deal with the fact that Hess’s family (wife, son, sisters) exchanged letters with and visited him and never said they though the man was an imposter? FYI information I have read both. In fact I've read all the books of both authors and personally know a good friend of Thomas, plus having contact with a number of people who conducted research or input personal recollections/information for both authors, including a Dutch resistance fighter who worked with Picknett & Prince on DOUBLE STANDARDS. But the pressing question is have you read either one yet Len? I mean fully read from cover to cover -- not merely reading a "good chunk" (in other words a couple of pages) off the Amazon reader. None of them cover to cover but I did read a few chapters plus many other pages (that came up in keyword searches) of DOUBLE STANDARDS You didn’t answer my question, “…how did he [Thomas] deal with the fact that Hess’s family (wife, son, sisters) exchanged letters with and visited him and never said they though the man was an imposter? According to the authors of the newer book Dr. Thomas though the scar would have been bigger that it really should have been and was looking in the wrong location. They evidence they produced was rather convincing. Since this undermines their theory they are unlikely to have made it up. See the Hess thread for more. Which "newer book" that is "rather convincing" are you referring too? DOUBLE STANDARDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 (edited) And straight back to the Mengele thread too: My post # 41 as copied here below, continues the discussion there: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...30&start=30 No Len, none of your tricksiness, disengenuous evasions and emphasis (and thread) switching will do. Stand by what you say here and now. In this thread. Just tell me the name of the "newer book" that is "rather convincing" that you referenced in your above post and state whether or not you have fully read both books referenced rather than indulging in reading a few pages (which you like to call reading a "good chunk")? They're both very simple questions Len. Why wriggle? PS, and btw, "impatience" had nothing to do with the repeated question I posted again this morning. I recognised your shape-shifting attempt for what it was. After all you deploy your trick armoury often enough to be easily recognisable. I also repeat what I stated earlier: your research is sloppy and you are transparent and predictable. Facts that you have just proved... yet again. [/unquote] Edited December 13, 2007 by David Guyatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 And straight back to the Mengele thread too: My post # 41 as copied here below, continues the discussion there: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...30&start=30 [-quote] No Len, none of your tricksiness, disengenuous evasions and emphasis (and thread) switching will do. Stand by what you say here and now. In this thread. Just tell me the name of the "newer book" that is "rather convincing" that you referenced in your above post and state whether or not you have fully read both books referenced rather than indulging in reading a few pages (which you like to call reading a "good chunk")? They're both very simple questions Len. Why wriggle? PS, and btw, "impatience" had nothing to do with the repeated question I posted again this morning. I recognised your shape-shifting attempt for what it was. After all you deploy your trick armoury often enough to be easily recognisable. I also repeat what I stated earlier: your research is sloppy and you are transparent and predictable. Facts that you have just proved... yet again. [/unquote] David do you remember when you kept asking me where my biography was when it was linked at the bottom of all my posts just like it is now and just like it is for (just about) every other member here?* Do you remember when you asked me for a citation for a claim when I had already done so a few posts earlier on the same page? If you don’t I do. Your remarkable ability to miss what’s right in front of you is once again apparent. No “tricksiness, disengenuous evasions” “wriggling” or “shape-shifting” on my part, I answered your questions in my previous post. I answered them here because this is the thread in which Hess is on topic; DOUBLE STANDARDS and Thomas’ books have already been discussed and cited. Continuing our discussion on the “Mengele” thread would be a tangential distraction from the points being debated there. I had already answered your first question on the other thread and the second stemmed from a reading comprehension problem on your part beyond my control. In the previous paragraph I had referred to DOUBLE STANDARDS as “a more recent book” it was the most recently published of the three books I referred to and the only one not by Dr. Thomas. I assumed you’d be able figure out I was referring to it when I mentioned “the newer book” not written by Thomas two sentences later, looks like I was wrong. You complain that I didn’t answer your question you still haven’t answered mine. Shall we give another try? “…how did he [Thomas] deal with the fact that Hess’s family (wife, son, sisters) exchanged letters with and visited him and never said they though the man was an imposter?” ...your research is sloppy and you are transparent and predictable. Facts that you have just proved... yet again. LOL I couldn't come up with better words to describe your most recent posts to me. * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...te=%2Bbiography Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 My response here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...30&start=30 Post# 44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 My response here:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...30&start=30 Post# 44 From the Mengele thread: No Len, none of your tricksiness, disengenuous evasions and emphasis (and thread) switching will do. Stand by what you say here and now. In this thread.Just tell me the name of the "newer book" that is "rather convincing" that you referenced in your above post and state whether or not you have fully read both books referenced rather than indulging in reading a few pages (which you like to call reading a "good chunk")? They're both very simple questions Len. Why wriggle? PS, and btw, "impatience" had nothing to do with the repeated question I posted again this morning. I recognised your shape-shifting attempt for what it was. After all you deploy your trick armoury often enough to be easily recognisable. I also repeat what I stated earlier: your research is sloppy and you are transparent and predictable. Facts that you have have just proved... yet again. Replied to on the Hess thread where it’s on topic. So how about that trip to Amsterdam? If you could find the evidence which Peter thinks might be there it would be quite the scoop, it could even serve as the basis for a book. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;qpid=131012 On the above thread, Len Colby said: Quote: I had already answered your first question on the other thread and the second stemmed from a reading comprehension problem on your part beyond my control. In the previous paragraph I had referred to DOUBLE STANDARDS as “a more recent book” it was the most recently published of the three books I referred to and the only one not by Dr. Thomas. I assumed you’d be able figure out I was referring to it when I mentioned “the newer book” not written by Thomas two sentences later, looks like I was wrong. Unquote Good grief. At last... I understood right away what book you were referring to Len, but I wanted you to state its name clearly and openly and so afford you no wriggle room later. The fact is that trying to pin you down is harder than nailing jelly to the wall. I see you wriggle, I see you duck, I see you dive and I see you avoid exactness whenever possible. I see your preference to using a form of words that are imprecise which enable you generate the “implied” meaning you intend, but which also leave you room for a fudge interpretation in case of need. I see this happening with considerable regularity. The purpose for this chicanery (part of your usual bag of tricks), in my view, is simply to avail yourself of a rathole down which you can slither in case of need - so that nothing can later come back to haunt you. This is typical of your style and it is obvious to many here besides myself - to the extent that they have commented on it themselves in other threads. It was for these reasons alone that I repeatedly pressed you to name the “second book” that you found “rather convincing”. That is to say that you found Picknett, Prince & Prior’s book DOUBLE STANDARDS “rather convincing” (at last you named it, albeit on an all together different thread so as to cause maximum smoke and mirrors confusion – as usual. Your sole purpose in quoting DOUBLE STANDARDS is to raise doubts about the veracity of Hugh Thomas’s book on Hess (THE MURDER OF RUDOLF HESS) - the underlying proposition of which is that the real Hess was killed on orders from Churchill and that a “double” took his place. Thomas maintains that the “double” later served time in Spandau prison until his death in 1987 (or as others now believe was assassinated in order to avoid the “con” coming to light when it became known that the Russians were, for the first time, finally considering his release in the closing stages of the cold war). But all you r wriggling had a clear purpose. It was to confuse the most singular fact that the authors of DOUBLE STANDARDS unequivocally concur and, indeed, even reinforce Hugh Thomas’s proposition in their own book and in interviews they gave: (Note: Lynn Picknett = (LP). Eye Spy = Eye Spy Magazine) Quote: EYE SPY!: What evidence exists to support the notion that the man who died in Spandau Prison wasn’t Rudolf Hess? LP: Alan Dulles, who became the head of the CIA, was of the opinion that the man who was condemned to life imprisonment at Nuremberg, was not the real Rudolf Hess - as was President Roosevelt himself. And in the 1970s, a British surgeon and ballistics expert, Dr. Hugh Thomas, actually had chance to physically examine the old man in Spandau. He knew that the real Hess had been wounded by a bullet in the First World War; so he looked on the old man’s body for signs of the wound but couldn’t find it. Now we’re not talking about someone who simply cast an eye over the man without knowing what he was looking for. Dr. Hugh Thomas, I must stress, is a surgeon and a ballistics expert who has been used in trials such as Bloody Sunday, so he really knows what he’s talking about. Also, there are circumstantial things, if you like. The man at Nuremberg refused to see his family and in fact he also refused to see anyone other than his lawyer for over twenty years - which is astonishing considering that he’d been locked up as you would think he would want to see them. Also, at Nuremberg the man had very, very convenient amnesia. He behaved very oddly at Nuremberg, he failed to recognise people that had worked very close with the real Hess. And at times he also failed to recognise colleagues in the Nazi hierarchy. And they seemed to think there was something strange about him especially Hermann Goring, a co-defendant at the trial. He was quite amused when someone was talking to him about Hess. This isn’t an exact quote, but Goring said: “Hess? Which Hess? The Hess you have here? Our Hess? Your Hess?” It was that kind of exchange. The man had also agreed to give evidence on behalf of one of the co-defendants but on the day claimed not to remember anything. In the book too we reproduce dental records of Rudolf Hess and of the old man who died at Spandau and they are not of the same man. We took them to a consultant dentist in this country and asked if they were from the same person and his reply was “Absolutely not”. The other thing I must point out, which is the clincher, when Dr Hugh Thomas came up with the revelation that the old man was a double, the British Government tied itself in knots trying to prove that this was Rudolf Hess - and they couldn’t do it. EYE SPY!: And do you have any idea who the double may have been? LP: All we know is that he was German and presumably a Nazi. He might have been interned in Britain - or he might have been sent over after the event. We don’t know who the double was but we did learn that when Hess arrived, he asked for by name two prisoners - two German internees, Dr Eduard Semelbauer and Kurt Maass. He knew where they were held and, interestingly, these two had already been moved from their respective internment camps - which suggests someone here knew about the flight and the plans - to a place near Glasgow. Now we don’t really know why he wanted them - he said it was to interpret for him but he spoke very good English! But we did discover that they were later sent to a camp on the Isle of Man for, quote, “Non-returnable Nazis”, which is a rather sinister phrase, I think! But it’s possible that one of them became the double as part of Churchill’s plot to deflect attention away from the real Rudolf Hess. For example, when Hess was first imprisoned in England it was at Aldershot and the place was a fortress; but then all of a sudden after a few months “Hess” was moved amid virtual fanfare to Abergavenny and the staff lined up to meet him and it was in the newspapers. So it seems that this was really a case of drawing attention to the double. Also there is evidence that the double was seen to meet Churchill in a place opposite Windsor Castle. The importance was to imply to the peace party and thereby to the Germans that Churchill was talking to Hess, even though in fact he wasn’t and was against the peace plan. So Churchill was playing a very, very cunning game. EYE SPY!: And why was the ruse continued after the War? LP: Well, Hess, or whoever the old man in Spandau was, became the focus for the Cold War; and as far as the Russians were concerned, the focus for their hatred of the Nazi regime. There was no way that the British were going to announce that “By the way, he’s not really Hess”! He was very useful. And one reason why he was looked after during the Cold War was because as long as he was alive Spandau would be there. And as long as Spandau was there, it gave the four victorious powers a reason to continue to occupy Berlin. It literally came down to this one man in the end. Unquote (see full interview here: http://www.eyespymag.com/intv.html) The fact that you haven’t read either book Len (not even a “good chunk” of one of them) clearly demonstrates what I have said above about you. You are a “sloppy researcher.” Only a sloppy researcher would use one book to mire another when they both say essentially the same thing. You are also tricksy, deceitful and wilfully blind when it suits your purposes. And as Peter has said, you have no ethical or moral underpinning whatsoever. I don’t say these things about you with any invective passion, but simply state what I now believe to be proven facts about your character (or rather the lack of it). "Good grief. At last..." ??? You ARE impatient; you asked me at precisely 11 AM (my time) on December 12, you asked me again at 7:05 AM the next day, I answered you three hours later at 10:04 AM less than 24 hours after you 1st posed the question. I only made two posts during that interval one replying to Peter the other responding to the rest of your post. "I understood right away what book you were referring to Len, but I wanted you to state its name clearly and openly and so afford you no wriggle room later." My dad is in his 90’s sometimes he passes from lucidity to being totally out of it or vice versa in a short span of time. When he realizes he has said something nonsensical and/or nonsequetous he claims he was ‘joking’, the same was true of my father-in-law who passed away a few months ago I pretend/pretended to believe them, I don’t owe you the same courtesy. You were joking when you kept asking me where my bio was too, right? Ditto for when you conflated acetone with acetone peroxide? And when you asked me for a citation that I’d already provided a couple posts up on the page? It should have been so obvious which book I was referring to that no clarification was necessary. "The fact is that trying to pin you down is harder than nailing jelly to the wall. I see you wriggle, I see you duck, I see you dive and I see you avoid exactness whenever possible. I see your preference to using a form of words that are imprecise which enable you generate the “implied” meaning you intend, but which also leave you room for a fudge interpretation in case of need. I see this happening with considerable regularity." Normally I avoid mincing words, though I avoid words like ‘all’, ‘none’, ‘always’ and ‘never’ because a single exception would prove me wrong. Can you cite examples of what you speak or is this yet another claim you will refuse to back up? "It was for these reasons alone that I repeatedly pressed you to name the “second book” that you found “rather convincing”." “Repeatedly pressed”? "At last"? You asked me twice in 20 hours, I answered you after 23. As to what I found “rather convincing” see below. "That is to say that you found Picknett, Prince & Prior’s book DOUBLE STANDARDS “rather convincing” (at last you named it, albeit on an all together different thread so as to cause maximum smoke and mirrors confusion – as usual." No your (reading) comprehension problems are apparent once again. Let’s look at my full quote. It seems that I conflated the Thomas book(s) about Hess with DOUBLE STANDARDS a more recent book that promotes a similar theory (i.e. the man held in Spandau wasn’t Hess). If you read either one how did he deal with the fact that Hess’s family (wife, son, sisters) exchanged letters with and visited him and never said they though the man was an imposter?According to the authors of the newer book Dr. Thomas though the scar would have been bigger that it really should have been and was looking in the wrong location. They evidence they produced was rather convincing. Since this undermines their theory they are unlikely to have made it up. See the Hess thread for more. To any reasonably literate person “the evidence they produced” that “was rather convincing” related to (and only to) Dr. Thomas being wrong about the size and location of Hess’ scar. My reasons for preferring this thread for this matter have been previously stated 1) it’s off topic on the other thread 2) the subject and books in question, including Picknett, Prince & Prior’s conclusions about Thomas’ error re: the size and location of the scar, have already been discussed here in several posts. And speaking of being hard “to pin down” and having to be “repeatedly pressed” to answer a question, you still haven’t answered mine, “how did he [Thomas] deal with the fact that Hess’s family (wife, son, sisters) exchanged letters with and visited him and never said they though the man was an imposter?” What is this the forth or fifth time I’ve asked you in three days? "Your sole purpose in quoting DOUBLE STANDARDS is to raise doubts about the veracity of Hugh Thomas’s book on Hess […] But all you r wriggling had a clear purpose. It was to confuse the most singular fact that the authors of DOUBLE STANDARDS unequivocally concur and, indeed, even reinforce Hugh Thomas’s proposition in their own book and in interviews they gave:" No attempt at confusion on my part, instead once again YOU are the one who is confused. Yes the authors of DOUBLE STANDARS reached a similar conclusion to Thomas, in fact I made this clear in my post. I referred to it as (emphasis added) “a more recent book that promotes a similar theory (i.e. the man held in Spandau wasn’t Hess)” later I pointed out that their account of Thomas’ error “undermines their theory” "Only a sloppy researcher would use one book to mire another when they both say essentially the same thing." As I made clear to anyone who read with a modicum of care was that I found their account of Thomas apparent error that much more convincing precisely because their books “both say essentially the same thing.” I wrote “. Since this undermines their theory they are unlikely to have made it up.” Here’s a book I highly recommend you add to your reading list "You are also tricksy, deceitful and wilfully blind when it suits your purposes. And as Peter has said, you have no ethical or moral underpinning whatsoever. " Neither you nor Peter has been able to back these claims. I don’t think you always understand what you read but have produced evidence that this is the case. As for being “wilfully blind when it suits your purposes” that obviously applies to you a great deal more than it does to me I am not especially interested in this topic I will only respond to you further if you... 1) reply on this thread 2) answer my question 3) cut the insults Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 My response here:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...30&start=30 Post# 44 From the Mengele thread: No Len, none of your tricksiness, disengenuous evasions and emphasis (and thread) switching will do. Stand by what you say here and now. In this thread.Just tell me the name of the "newer book" that is "rather convincing" that you referenced in your above post and state whether or not you have fully read both books referenced rather than indulging in reading a few pages (which you like to call reading a "good chunk")? They're both very simple questions Len. Why wriggle? PS, and btw, "impatience" had nothing to do with the repeated question I posted again this morning. I recognised your shape-shifting attempt for what it was. After all you deploy your trick armoury often enough to be easily recognisable. I also repeat what I stated earlier: your research is sloppy and you are transparent and predictable. Facts that you have have just proved... yet again. Replied to on the Hess thread where it’s on topic. So how about that trip to Amsterdam? If you could find the evidence which Peter thinks might be there it would be quite the scoop, it could even serve as the basis for a book. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;qpid=131012 On the above thread, Len Colby said: Quote: I had already answered your first question on the other thread and the second stemmed from a reading comprehension problem on your part beyond my control. In the previous paragraph I had referred to DOUBLE STANDARDS as “a more recent book” it was the most recently published of the three books I referred to and the only one not by Dr. Thomas. I assumed you’d be able figure out I was referring to it when I mentioned “the newer book” not written by Thomas two sentences later, looks like I was wrong. Unquote Good grief. At last... I understood right away what book you were referring to Len, but I wanted you to state its name clearly and openly and so afford you no wriggle room later. The fact is that trying to pin you down is harder than nailing jelly to the wall. I see you wriggle, I see you duck, I see you dive and I see you avoid exactness whenever possible. I see your preference to using a form of words that are imprecise which enable you generate the “implied” meaning you intend, but which also leave you room for a fudge interpretation in case of need. I see this happening with considerable regularity. The purpose for this chicanery (part of your usual bag of tricks), in my view, is simply to avail yourself of a rathole down which you can slither in case of need - so that nothing can later come back to haunt you. This is typical of your style and it is obvious to many here besides myself - to the extent that they have commented on it themselves in other threads. It was for these reasons alone that I repeatedly pressed you to name the “second book” that you found “rather convincing”. That is to say that you found Picknett, Prince & Prior’s book DOUBLE STANDARDS “rather convincing” (at last you named it, albeit on an all together different thread so as to cause maximum smoke and mirrors confusion – as usual. Your sole purpose in quoting DOUBLE STANDARDS is to raise doubts about the veracity of Hugh Thomas’s book on Hess (THE MURDER OF RUDOLF HESS) - the underlying proposition of which is that the real Hess was killed on orders from Churchill and that a “double” took his place. Thomas maintains that the “double” later served time in Spandau prison until his death in 1987 (or as others now believe was assassinated in order to avoid the “con” coming to light when it became known that the Russians were, for the first time, finally considering his release in the closing stages of the cold war). But all you r wriggling had a clear purpose. It was to confuse the most singular fact that the authors of DOUBLE STANDARDS unequivocally concur and, indeed, even reinforce Hugh Thomas’s proposition in their own book and in interviews they gave: (Note: Lynn Picknett = (LP). Eye Spy = Eye Spy Magazine) Quote: EYE SPY!: What evidence exists to support the notion that the man who died in Spandau Prison wasn’t Rudolf Hess? LP: Alan Dulles, who became the head of the CIA, was of the opinion that the man who was condemned to life imprisonment at Nuremberg, was not the real Rudolf Hess - as was President Roosevelt himself. And in the 1970s, a British surgeon and ballistics expert, Dr. Hugh Thomas, actually had chance to physically examine the old man in Spandau. He knew that the real Hess had been wounded by a bullet in the First World War; so he looked on the old man’s body for signs of the wound but couldn’t find it. Now we’re not talking about someone who simply cast an eye over the man without knowing what he was looking for. Dr. Hugh Thomas, I must stress, is a surgeon and a ballistics expert who has been used in trials such as Bloody Sunday, so he really knows what he’s talking about. Also, there are circumstantial things, if you like. The man at Nuremberg refused to see his family and in fact he also refused to see anyone other than his lawyer for over twenty years - which is astonishing considering that he’d been locked up as you would think he would want to see them. Also, at Nuremberg the man had very, very convenient amnesia. He behaved very oddly at Nuremberg, he failed to recognise people that had worked very close with the real Hess. And at times he also failed to recognise colleagues in the Nazi hierarchy. And they seemed to think there was something strange about him especially Hermann Goring, a co-defendant at the trial. He was quite amused when someone was talking to him about Hess. This isn’t an exact quote, but Goring said: “Hess? Which Hess? The Hess you have here? Our Hess? Your Hess?” It was that kind of exchange. The man had also agreed to give evidence on behalf of one of the co-defendants but on the day claimed not to remember anything. In the book too we reproduce dental records of Rudolf Hess and of the old man who died at Spandau and they are not of the same man. We took them to a consultant dentist in this country and asked if they were from the same person and his reply was “Absolutely not”. The other thing I must point out, which is the clincher, when Dr Hugh Thomas came up with the revelation that the old man was a double, the British Government tied itself in knots trying to prove that this was Rudolf Hess - and they couldn’t do it. EYE SPY!: And do you have any idea who the double may have been? LP: All we know is that he was German and presumably a Nazi. He might have been interned in Britain - or he might have been sent over after the event. We don’t know who the double was but we did learn that when Hess arrived, he asked for by name two prisoners - two German internees, Dr Eduard Semelbauer and Kurt Maass. He knew where they were held and, interestingly, these two had already been moved from their respective internment camps - which suggests someone here knew about the flight and the plans - to a place near Glasgow. Now we don’t really know why he wanted them - he said it was to interpret for him but he spoke very good English! But we did discover that they were later sent to a camp on the Isle of Man for, quote, “Non-returnable Nazis”, which is a rather sinister phrase, I think! But it’s possible that one of them became the double as part of Churchill’s plot to deflect attention away from the real Rudolf Hess. For example, when Hess was first imprisoned in England it was at Aldershot and the place was a fortress; but then all of a sudden after a few months “Hess” was moved amid virtual fanfare to Abergavenny and the staff lined up to meet him and it was in the newspapers. So it seems that this was really a case of drawing attention to the double. Also there is evidence that the double was seen to meet Churchill in a place opposite Windsor Castle. The importance was to imply to the peace party and thereby to the Germans that Churchill was talking to Hess, even though in fact he wasn’t and was against the peace plan. So Churchill was playing a very, very cunning game. EYE SPY!: And why was the ruse continued after the War? LP: Well, Hess, or whoever the old man in Spandau was, became the focus for the Cold War; and as far as the Russians were concerned, the focus for their hatred of the Nazi regime. There was no way that the British were going to announce that “By the way, he’s not really Hess”! He was very useful. And one reason why he was looked after during the Cold War was because as long as he was alive Spandau would be there. And as long as Spandau was there, it gave the four victorious powers a reason to continue to occupy Berlin. It literally came down to this one man in the end. Unquote (see full interview here: http://www.eyespymag.com/intv.html) The fact that you haven’t read either book Len (not even a “good chunk” of one of them) clearly demonstrates what I have said above about you. You are a “sloppy researcher.” Only a sloppy researcher would use one book to mire another when they both say essentially the same thing. You are also tricksy, deceitful and wilfully blind when it suits your purposes. And as Peter has said, you have no ethical or moral underpinning whatsoever. I don’t say these things about you with any invective passion, but simply state what I now believe to be proven facts about your character (or rather the lack of it). "Good grief. At last..." ??? You ARE impatient; you asked me at precisely 11 AM (my time) on December 12, you asked me again at 7:05 AM the next day, I answered you three hours later at 10:04 AM less than 24 hours after you 1st posed the question. I only made two posts during that interval one replying to Peter the other responding to the rest of your post. "I understood right away what book you were referring to Len, but I wanted you to state its name clearly and openly and so afford you no wriggle room later." My dad is in his 90’s sometimes he passes from lucidity to being totally out of it or vice versa in a short span of time. When he realizes he has said something nonsensical and/or nonsequetous he claims he was ‘joking’, the same was true of my father-in-law who passed away a few months ago I pretend/pretended to believe them, I don’t owe you the same courtesy. You were joking when you kept asking me where my bio was too, right? Ditto for when you conflated acetone with acetone peroxide? And when you asked me for a citation that I’d already provided a couple posts up on the page? It should have been so obvious which book I was referring to that no clarification was necessary. "The fact is that trying to pin you down is harder than nailing jelly to the wall. I see you wriggle, I see you duck, I see you dive and I see you avoid exactness whenever possible. I see your preference to using a form of words that are imprecise which enable you generate the “implied” meaning you intend, but which also leave you room for a fudge interpretation in case of need. I see this happening with considerable regularity." Normally I avoid mincing words, though I avoid words like ‘all’, ‘none’, ‘always’ and ‘never’ because a single exception would prove me wrong. Can you cite examples of what you speak or is this yet another claim you will refuse to back up? "It was for these reasons alone that I repeatedly pressed you to name the “second book” that you found “rather convincing”." “Repeatedly pressed”? "At last"? You asked me twice in 20 hours, I answered you after 23. As to what I found “rather convincing” see below. "That is to say that you found Picknett, Prince & Prior’s book DOUBLE STANDARDS “rather convincing” (at last you named it, albeit on an all together different thread so as to cause maximum smoke and mirrors confusion – as usual." No your (reading) comprehension problems are apparent once again. Let’s look at my full quote. It seems that I conflated the Thomas book(s) about Hess with DOUBLE STANDARDS a more recent book that promotes a similar theory (i.e. the man held in Spandau wasn’t Hess). If you read either one how did he deal with the fact that Hess’s family (wife, son, sisters) exchanged letters with and visited him and never said they though the man was an imposter?According to the authors of the newer book Dr. Thomas though the scar would have been bigger that it really should have been and was looking in the wrong location. They evidence they produced was rather convincing. Since this undermines their theory they are unlikely to have made it up. See the Hess thread for more. To any reasonably literate person “the evidence they produced” that “was rather convincing” related to (and only to) Dr. Thomas being wrong about the size and location of Hess’ scar. My reasons for preferring this thread for this matter have been previously stated 1) it’s off topic on the other thread 2) the subject and books in question, including Picknett, Prince & Prior’s conclusions about Thomas’ error re: the size and location of the scar, have already been discussed here in several posts. And speaking of being hard “to pin down” and having to be “repeatedly pressed” to answer a question, you still haven’t answered mine, “how did he [Thomas] deal with the fact that Hess’s family (wife, son, sisters) exchanged letters with and visited him and never said they though the man was an imposter?” What is this the forth or fifth time I’ve asked you in three days? "Your sole purpose in quoting DOUBLE STANDARDS is to raise doubts about the veracity of Hugh Thomas’s book on Hess […] But all you r wriggling had a clear purpose. It was to confuse the most singular fact that the authors of DOUBLE STANDARDS unequivocally concur and, indeed, even reinforce Hugh Thomas’s proposition in their own book and in interviews they gave:" No attempt at confusion on my part, instead once again YOU are the one who is confused. Yes the authors of DOUBLE STANDARS reached a similar conclusion to Thomas, in fact I made this clear in my post. I referred to it as (emphasis added) “a more recent book that promotes a similar theory (i.e. the man held in Spandau wasn’t Hess)” later I pointed out that their account of Thomas’ error “undermines their theory” "Only a sloppy researcher would use one book to mire another when they both say essentially the same thing." As I made clear to anyone who read with a modicum of care was that I found their account of Thomas apparent error that much more convincing precisely because their books “both say essentially the same thing.” I wrote “. Since this undermines their theory they are unlikely to have made it up.” Here’s a book I highly recommend you add to your reading list "You are also tricksy, deceitful and wilfully blind when it suits your purposes. And as Peter has said, you have no ethical or moral underpinning whatsoever. " Neither you nor Peter has been able to back these claims. I don’t think you always understand what you read but have produced evidence that this is the case. As for being “wilfully blind when it suits your purposes” that obviously applies to you a great deal more than it does to me I am not especially interested in this topic I will only respond to you further if you... 1) reply on this thread 2) answer my question 3) cut the insults Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 .....nonsequetous Nice word. Normally I avoid mincing words... Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now